Orissa High Court
2 8.4.2021 This Matter Is Taken Up ... vs Government Advocate For The State on 8 April, 2021
W.P.(C) NO.12831 OF 2021
2 8.4.2021 This matter is taken up by video conferencing
mode.
Heard Mr.G.R.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.B.P.Tripathy, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
From the impugned order vide Annexure-9, it
appears the claim of the petitioner pending for Rehabilitation
Assistance Appointment pending since 2017 involving a
death of the year 2016 to be considered applying the 2020
rules, a rule which has not seen the light of the day either
on the date of death of the deceased or on the date of
application or even at the time of consideration of the
recommendation of the case of the petitioner.
For the settled position of law through the
decision in the case of Canara Bank Vrs. M. Mahesh Kumar,
reported in 2015 (7) SCC 412, the latest decision of the
Hon'ble apex Court, through the decision in the case of
Indian Bank and others Vrs. Promila and another, reported
in 2020 (2) SCC 729 and several decisions of this Court
particularly involving W.P.(C) Nos.8486 of 2021 and 10571
of 2021, it is observed law on this score has been settled and
there remains no doubt while considering the case of
Rehabilitation Assistance Appointment, the rule prevailing at
the time of death has the relevancy. For the operation of
Rule, 1990, the Amendment Rule, 2016 at the relevant point
of time there is no possibility of application of OCS (RA)
Rules, 2020 to the case at hand.
In this view of the matter, this Court interfering
m
with the order at Annexure-9 sets aside the same, for their
being no objection on behalf of the rest of the family
2
members for providing employment under Rehabilitation
Assistance Appointment Scheme to the petitioner, since
petitioner is otherwise eligible and the rejection of his case is
only on the ground that he is required to make an
application under Rule, 2020, the impugned order is simply
declared as bad in law. This Court accordingly directs the
O.P.5 to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner
under Rehabilitation Assistance Appointment Scheme in the
post looking to his qualification aspect within a period of one
month from the date of communication of the order.
With the above observation, the writ petition
stands disposed of. For this Court facing similar dispute
being passed by different Public Authority involving
appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Appointment
Scheme every day, this Court feels it appropriate to request
the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Odisha to issue necessary
directions/instructions to all concerned to at least apply the
rule prevailing at the time of submission of the application of
this nature also taking into consideration the rule prevailing
at the time of date of death of the deceased and decide such
matters accordingly. If feels appropriate, the Chief Secretary
may circulate copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble apex
Court referred to herein above as well as the High Court
judgment/order at least in an attempt to lesser the burden
of this Court.
A copy of this order be supplied to Sri
B.P.Tripathy, learned A.G.A. for communication of the order
of this Court and direction hereinabove to the Chief
Secretary of the State.
As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation
are continuing, learned counsel for the Parties may utilise a
3
soft copy of this order available in the High Court's Website
or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner
prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th March,
2020.
..............................
Biswanath Rath, J.
